Competitor.com» Matt Fitzgerald

Sports Science Update: The Functional Movement Screen

Matt Fitzgerald — Tue, 29 Nov 2011 19:04:51 +0000

Seven simple moves can be used to assess your injury risk and chart a course toward healthier running.

Written by: Matt Fitzgerald

Winter is the perfect time of year for most runners to perform a Functional Movement Screen and start a program of corrective exercises to address weaknesses. Photo: FunctionalMovement.com

The Functional Movement Screen is a tool that was developed by physical therapists Gray Cook and Lee Burton in the 1990s. It is based on the idea that all sports and exercise movements are built on the seven basic movement patterns and that most injuries are caused by an inability to perform these movements correctly. The test consists of seven basic movements, such as a simple forward lunge, that every able-bodied athlete and exerciser ought to be able to perform with good alignment, stability, and range of motion, and without pain.

A straightforward scoring system is used. The test subject gets three points if he can perform a deep squat, hurdle step, lunge, lying leg left, push-up, trunk rotation, or shoulder mobility test without any “compensatory” movements, such as becoming knock-kneed while squatting. Moderate compensatory movements earn two points. If the subject can’t do the movement right at all, he gets one point, and any pain merits a goose egg.

Composite scores from the seven tests accurately predict future injury risk in everyone from grandmothers in group exercise programs to professional athletes. In 2007, a team of physical therapists led by the University of Evansville’s Kyle Kiesel subjected 46 members of a professional football team to the Functional Movement Screen. They then tracked serious injuries among the players over the course of the ensuing season and discovered that players with a composite score below 14 were 11 times more likely to get hurt.

The Functional Movement Screen received even broader validation recently in a study involving 874 Marine officers. These officers were subjected to a Functional Movement Screen at the start of a physical training program. Injuries were then tracked throughout the program. Finally, injury risk and types of injuries were correlated with Functional Movement Screen scores.

As in the study involving professional football players, this study used a composite score of 14 to distinguish high-risk and low-risk groupings. The average score was 16.6, and only 10 percent of the officers scored below 14. Again, injury risk among those with FMS scores below 14 was significantly greater than for those with scores of 14 or greater. The FMS also accurately predicted the location of injuries. (For example, officers scoring poorly in the shoulder mobility test proved more likely to suffer shoulder injuries.)

In addition to predicting injury risk and type, FMS scores at the start of the training program accurately predicted scores in a standardized test of physical conditioning performed at the end of the training program. Of the officers who achieved scores of 280 points or more out of a possible 300 points, only 6.6 percent had initial FMS scores below 14.

These findings indicate that people who plan to exercise seriously should screen their movements and work on improving their scores. Doing so will enable them to identify and improve faulty movement patterns before these problems can cause injuries and limit progress in a training program involving repetitive movements (as nearly all serious exercise programs do).

As a runner, you need not be as concerned about your shoulder mobility as you are about your ability to lunge fully without compensation or pain. Nevertheless, everything is connected in the human body, so it’s worthwhile to do the full test and work on any limitations you discover, even if they occur above the waist.

Winter is the perfect time of year for most runners to perform a Functional Movement Screen and start a program of corrective exercises (consisting of targeted stretches and strength exercises) to address weaknesses. Without races on the immediate horizon, you have the freedom to reduce your run training to a minimal level while you focus on movement correction and thereby put a stop to practicing “bad habits” in your stride.

Any licensed physical therapist can take you through the FMS and prescribe a program of corrective exercises. Thereafter you may be able to repeat the FMS periodically on your own, using a mirror to spot limitations and compensatory movements. Use these check-ups to keep you body well balanced, minimize your risk of injury, and maximize the results you get from each mile of running.

****

Matt Fitzgerald is the author of Iron War: Dave Scott, Mark Allen & The Greatest Race Ever Run (VeloPress 2011) and a Coach and Training Intelligence Specialist for PEAR Sports. Find out more at mattfizgerald.org.

Matt Fitzgerald’s Marathon Week Nutrition Plan

Matt Fitzgerald — Wed, 23 Nov 2011 16:17:21 +0000

The author will soon run a marathon in less-than-perfect shape. He needs all the nutritional help he can get. Here’s what he’s doing.

Written by: Matt Fitzgerald

The author is pulling out all stops to give himself every advantage possible heading into the Cal International Marathon on Dec. 4.

I will run the California International Marathon on December 4. My younger brother Sean is also running it. In fact, I’m running it because he’s running it. Sean is making a bid to break the coveted three-hour barrier for the first time, and I will (try to) pace him through it.

Sean set his current marathon PR of 3:03-something three years ago. That’s a pretty good time for a 6’3” 200-pounder who does not consider himself a “real runner”. But he can do better. He was trying to break three hours in that last marathon, and he probably would have succeeded on a better course. Sean has been carrying a monkey on his back ever since, and I’m almost as eager as he is to see that monkey removed. He’s trained more seriously than ever before and I think he’s ready.

As for me, I’m not so sure I’m in sub-three-hour marathon shape. I’ve run a bunch of marathons as workouts in the 3:02 to 2:54 range, so I know what sort of shape I have to be in to pull it off. When I registered for CIM back in September I was not in terrific shape but knew I had enough time to get where I needed to be. Then I missed two weeks of training with a calf strain. I started running again on October 3, five weeks before race day. That’s pushing it!

The original plan was to treat my pacing duty as a workout. I would skip most of the little things I would normally do to get 100 percent dialed in before a marathon that I was actually racing. Now I have no choice but to treat the marathon as a race and do those little things, many of which are nutritional in nature.

My ideal marathon racing weight is 154 lbs. Currently I weigh 162 lbs. There’s no hope whatsoever of my losing 8 lbs of body fat in 11 days, and I often caution other endurance athletes against pursuing weight loss as a primary goal while simultaneously pursuing peak fitness. Nevertheless, I know that losing a pound or 24 ounces between now and race day could be the difference between my leading Sean across the finish line in 2:59:55 and suffering the humiliation of having Sean drop his “real runner” big brother with a mile or two to go.

Thanksgiving Day is tomorrow. I will feast and drink like an emperor. But after that I will put myself on a severe dietary austerity plan. I will drink no alcohol and eat no sweets of any kind. Dairy products will also disappear from my diet for 10 days. I’ll take a break from sauces, dressings, and other sneaky calorie sources as well. And only the leanest protein sources will find their way into my mouth. I will not make any special effort to eat less generally or reduce my consumption of grains, because I need to ensure that my leg muscles and liver are packed with glycogen fuel even as I strive to shed 16 to 24 crucial ounces of flab.

This Saturday I will enjoy my last mug of morning coffee before the marathon. As we all know, caffeine enhances endurance performance by tickling a “pleasure center” in the brain and reducing perception of effort. But it only works in those who are non-caffeine habituated. So I always force myself to endure a weeklong caffeine fast before important races and then I pop two No-Doz pills 30 minutes before the race starts.

I’ve tried various carbohydrate loading protocols over the years but have lately settled on the simplest of them, trusting the research behind it. There is no awful carbohydrate depletion phase to suffer through in this protocol. All you have to do is gobble 4.5 grams of carbohydrate per pound of body weight in a single day within three days of racing. That’s always a fun day of eating, and I’m looking forward to repeating it next Thursday, the day after my last workout of any substance.

One last measure I plan to employ before this race that is quasi-nutritional in nature is swallowing a couple of Tylenol tablets right before the race. A study performed a couple of years ago found that acetaminophen (the active ingredient in Tylenol) improved endurance performance by blocking pain signals. I haven’t tried this before, but as I’ve said, I need all the help I can get.

Wish me—and more importantly, wish Sean—luck!

****

Matt Fitzgerald is the author of Iron War: Dave Scott, Mark Allen & The Greatest Race Ever Run (VeloPress 2011) and a Coach and Training Intelligence Specialist for PEAR Sports. Find out more at mattfizgerald.org.

Sports Science Update: How Laziness Makes You A Better Runner

Matt Fitzgerald — Tue, 22 Nov 2011 18:20:52 +0000

A new study suggests we naturally run with as little muscle activation as possible.

Written by: Matt Fitzgerald

Galen Rupp en route to his American record run in the 10,000 meters. Photo: PhotoRun.net

On May 7, 2005, Galen Rupp set an American junior record of 28:25.52 for 10,000 meters. He was one day shy of his 19^th birthday at the time and had only been running seriously for a few years. Six years later, Rupp set a new American record of 26:48.00 in the same event.

How did Rupp improve his 10,000m time by 97 seconds in early adulthood? What were the physiological changes underlying his tremendous gains in performance? You might assume it was a strengthening of his aerobic system, measurable as an increase in his VO2max. After all, running is an aerobic sport, and nothing aids running performance like a strong aerobic system. Nevertheless, your assumption is probably incorrect.

Rupp’s breakthrough can be tied to inherent laziness–and I don’t mean that he didn’t work hard to achieve his big breakthrough. Let me explain.

Strengthening of the aerobic system certainly is the most important factor in performance improvement in the first few years of a runner’s career. The heart becomes bigger and more powerful, the blood becomes thicker, the muscles become more densely packed with capillaries, aerobic enzymes, and mitochondria, and so forth. When sedentary individuals are subjected to regular aerobic exercise, their VO2max typically increases by upwards of 15 percent in a matter of two or three months.

This pattern does not continue, however. After two or three years of training and competing, serious runners see only minimal gains in aerobic power. By then the heart has gotten as big and strong as it can get, the blood as thick as it will ever be, and the muscles as densely packed with capillaries, aerobic enzymes, and mitochondria as they possibly can. Yet serious runners may continue to improve markedly after their first two or three years in the sport, as Galen Rupp did.

So if it wasn’t continued strengthening of his aerobic system that enabled Rupp to make his leap forward as a runner, what was it? The best evidence suggests that while aerobic development peters out after a few years, improvements in the efficiency of the running stride continue long afterward. It is these improvements that enable serious runners to set big PRs after their first few years in the sport.

It has been proposed that runners naturally and unconsciously tend to adopt a stride pattern that minimizes the energy cost of running given their body structure. For example, when runners are asked to slightly increase or decrease the length of their stride in a laboratory setting, they always become less economical. Thus it appears that runners find the stride length that minimizes the energy cost of their running without ever thinking about it.

Sports Science Update: More Reasons To Leave Your Stride Alone

This does not mean every runner starts off running as economically as he possibly can from his very first day in the sport, however. While beginners may dial in cruder variables such as stride length fairly quickly, there are a million other subtler nuances of the stride that are gradually refined and made more efficient over weeks, months, and years.

Researchers at the University of Massachusetts recently created a computer model that was designed to determine whether the body seeks to minimize energy cost directly when running, or whether it seeks some other objective and energy cost just happens to be minimized as a result. These researchers took biomechanical measurements from a bunch of runners and compared them to three different computer simulations of running. In one of these simulations, virtual runners were made to run for minimum energy cost directly. In a second simulation these same virtual runners were made to run in the manner that minimized total muscle activation. And in the third they ran to minimize muscle stress. As it turned out, the simulation in which the virtual runners ran to minimize muscle activation most closely matched the way the real runners in the study actually ran.

If these findings are valid, then they suggest that some sort of control mechanism in the brain is able to detect the amount of muscle activation that is required to run at various speeds and automatically latches on to stride patterns that reduce muscle activation at each speed. It’s a self-serving capability based on the principle of laziness. Our bodies really don’t want us to run, but we make them. Our bodies deal with being forced to run by constantly searching for and finding ways to run with less and less muscle activation. Ironically, it is this hardwired laziness that runners like Galen Rupp have to thank for major performance breakthroughs that come after their aerobic systems are already as strong as they will ever be.

****

About The Author:

Inside ZAP Fitness: The Life Of An Aspiring Elite American Runner

Matt Fitzgerald — Thu, 17 Nov 2011 20:20:11 +0000

Zap Fitness athletes Alissa McKaig and Dave Jankowski go through a training run on a quiet road in Boone, NC. Photo: Gerry Melendez

This piece first appeared in the September issue of Competitor Magazine.

Written by: Matt Fitzgerald

The sun rises over Blackberry Valley, a lush fold in the Blue Ridge Mountains of western North Carolina. It is a cool Sunday morning at the end of May. At 7:30 young men and women wearing running clothes and shoes begin to filter into a kitchen and dining area. They talk as people do who see each other every day. Bananas, bagels and cold cereal with milk are consumed.

At 8:15 the runners pile into a couple of cars and crackle down a long dirt driveway. Twenty minutes of slow driving along roads that see frequent deer crossings lead them to Moses H. Cone Memorial Park in the town of Blowing Rock, N.C.

Seven runners emerge from the two vehicles. Six are 25 years old. All of them were exceptional collegiate runners, but not among the handful of very best who graduated and secured contracts with running shoe companies. Alissa McKaig, for example, finished 10th at the NCAA Cross Country Championships while at Michigan State—one of three colleges she attended without graduating from any. Chris Clark was a five-time All-American at University of Pennsylvania, a Division II school.

A hybrid SUV pulls into the lot. Out steps head coach of ZAP Fitness, Pete Rea, who is still boyish-looking at age 42. Rea warns the runners that the park will likely be full of horseback riders this morning. “Please slow down and say something nice when you pass them,” he says.

Photo Gallery: A Day In The Life At ZAP Fitness

Sports Science Update: Revisiting The Glycemic Index

Matt Fitzgerald — Wed, 16 Nov 2011 00:01:36 +0000

New evidence suggests the glycemic index of foods doesn’t matter as much as you’ve been told.

Written by: Matt Fitzgerald

Twenty years ago, most Americans had never heard of the glycemic index. Today, it’s a familiar concept. We all know that the glycemic index is a measure of how quickly the blood glucose level rises after carbohydrate-containing foods are consumed. We know that most vegetables and whole-grain foods are considered low to moderate glycemic, while most sugary and starchy foods are considered high glycemic. And we know that the carbs in high-glycemic foods are more likely to be converted to body fat and that, over time, eating too many high-glycemic foods increases the risk of becoming overweight and insulin resistant.

It turns out, however, that we might not know as much about the glycemic index as we think we do. Nutrition scientists are now finding that the effect of foods on blood glucose levels may have more to do with individual biochemistry than with the foods themselves. For example, the glycemic index of white bread is 70. But in a recent study involving 14 subjects, the individual glycemic index scores of white bread ranged from 44 to 132. Sure, the average score was 70, but that score was irrelevant to most of the study participants’ bodies!

What’s more, the Tufts University Researchers who conducted this study also found a high degree of variation in the blood glucose response to specific foods within individuals depending on when they ate them—as much as 42 percent variation. That means a low-fat muffin could be a low GI food for you in the morning and a high GI food in the evening!

What does this mean for you? It means that it’s rather pointless to base your food choices based on foods’ glycemic index, which represents an average value that might not apply to you.

Challenge Your Core: How To Execute A Proper Plank

Matt Fitzgerald — Fri, 11 Nov 2011 00:29:09 +0000

This piece first appeared in the October issue of Competitor Magazine.

Basic Plank. Photo: Scott Draper

Also known as “the bridge,” the plank is a versatile core strengthening exercise that helps athletes improve core stability. The plank has its roots in yoga and, like most yoga poses, involves isometric, or long-hold, muscle contractions.

The basic plank is simple: Assume a modified push-up position with your elbows bent 90 degrees and both forearms resting on the floor. Position your elbows directly underneath your shoulders and look straight toward the floor. Your body should form a perfectly straight line from the crown of your head to your heels. Your feet are together with only the toes touching the floor.

Hold this position as long as you can, concentrating on keeping your abdominal and low back muscles tightened to prevent bending at the hips. Once a 30-second hold becomes easy, make the plank more challenging by alternately lifting each foot off the floor or holding the position for an extended amount of time.

For 60-second injury prevention and strengthening exercises, check out the Monday Minute channel on CompetitorTV.com.

At first you’ll find it difficult to do this without bending at the waist or twisting along your long axis, but keep your body as straight and neutral as possible. Keep each foot elevated for a two-count and pause for a two-count between foot lifts. Build up to 10 lifts per foot.

OTHER MODIFICATIONS TO THE PLANK CAN BE USED TO STRENGTHEN DIFFERENT PARTS OF YOUR CORE.

To work the obliques, rotate onto one side and suspend your body between the forearm of your bottom arm and the outside of your lower foot, with your other foot stacked on top. Rotate onto your other forearm to work the other side.

THERE’S ALSO A REVERSE, OR SUPINE, PLANK.

Rotate again so you’re face up with your body suspended between your forearms, with your elbows again directly underneath your shoulders, and the heels of both feet resting on the mat or floor, toes pointed upward.

BOTH THE SIDE PLANK AND THE REVERSE PLANK CAN BE MADE MORE CHALLENGING WITH LEG LIFTS.

Reverse Plank. Photo: Scott Draper

Sports Science Update: Did Meb’s Socks Help Him PR?

Matt Fitzgerald — Tue, 08 Nov 2011 18:55:10 +0000

New study adds little clarity to our understanding of the benefits of compression socks.

Written by: Matt Fitzgerald

Did Meb's compression socks help him to a 2-second personal best at the New York City Marathon? Photo: Patrick McDermott/Getty Images/sports.yahoo.com

If you watched live television or online video coverage of the ING New York City Marathon on Sunday, you probably saw the 2009 champion, Meb Keflezighi, sporting a pair of white compression socks that rose to just below his knees. Although compression socks are primarily associated with recovery benefits, Meb obviously wasn’t wearing them during the most important race of the year to recover from the previous day’s shakeout jog. Nor is it likely that he wore them so that he’d have an easier time walking down stairs the next day. Instead, surely, he wore them for the same reason he did everything else that day: to enhance his performance in the race itself.

While Meb managed a sixth-place finish on a day that saw three men break the decade-old course New York City Marathon record, the 2004 Olympic Marathon silver medalist did set a personal best for the marathon distance–and at 36 years of age, no less. Does Meb have his compression socks to thank for his new PR?

The results of a new study suggest probably not. Conducted by a team of French researchers and published in the International Journal of Sports Medicine, the study involved 14 moderately trained athletes. These subjects were asked to perform a running test on two separate occasions. First they sat around for 15 minutes. Then they ran for half an hour at a moderate intensity. Next they recovered from this effort for 15 minutes and then ran to exhaustion at a pace equaling their previously determined maximum aerobic velocity. Finally, they recovered for 30 minutes.

On one occasion the subjects performed this test while wearing compression sleeves covering their lower legs. On the other occasion they just wore regular athletic socks. The researchers were interested in seeing not only whether the subjects would be able to run longer at their maximum aerobic velocity with the compression sleeves, but also whether they would exhibit higher levels of calf muscle tissue oxygenation, which the researchers measured before and after the performance test. Increasing oxygen supply to the working muscles is one proposed mechanism by which compression garments could enhance endurance performance.

However, in this study, the wearing of compression garments was not associated with improved performance. In fact, the subjects were able to run a few seconds longer, on average, without the compression sleeves than with them, although the difference was not statistically significant. This happened despite the fact that the compression sleeves did increase calf muscle tissue oxygenation before and after the performance test (hence presumably during the test, as well, although it was not possible to take this measurement during the test).

The increase in calf muscle tissue oxygenation was 6.4 percent (on average) before the performance test, and grew to 7.4 percent 20 minutes after the test and all the way to 10.7 percent 30 minutes after the performance test. Since oxygen supply to the muscles aids recovery, the authors of this study suggested that, although no performance benefit was seen, further research should be conducted to determine whether compression garments make a measurable difference in particular recovery parameters.

So it appears that Meb Keflezighi has only his training to credit—or perhaps his new Skechers GOrun racing flats—for his new marathon personal best time of 2:09:13. But if he kept his compression socks on after the race (or put on a clean pair), he just might be having an easier time walking down stairs today.

****

Should You Take a Multivitamin?

Matt Fitzgerald — Thu, 03 Nov 2011 16:32:43 +0000

Nobody “needs” a multivitamin, but they can be helpful.

Written by: Matt Fitzgerald

Taking a daily multivitamin/multimineral supplement is a personal choice for each endurance athlete. It certainly is not a necessity for anyone. A balanced diet based on unprocessed foods will give you all the vitamins and minerals you need. You only “need” a vitamin supplement if you create that need by eating a less nutritious diet than you should. What’s more, a multivitamin cannot truly substitute for a poor diet. It may save you from the worst consequences of specific vitamin and mineral deficiencies, but it cannot do all of the good that real foods do, nor can it undo all of the harm that bad food choices do.

However, while it is within the power of each of us to get all of the vitamins and minerals we need from our diet, few of us actually do. Particular vitamin and mineral deficiencies are very common in our society, even among athletes who make some effort to control their diet quality. While the individual athlete who has one or more of these common deficiencies is always best advised to improve his diet, a vitamin supplement can benefit the athlete’s health and performance while he works on mustering the willpower to eat better.

Many nutritionists recommend that everyone take multivitamins as a form of nutritional “insurance” on the grounds that doing so could help and can’t hurt. That’s not true. Taking a multivitamin that contains large doses of individual vitamins and minerals increases the chances that you will get too much of certain nutrients, especially if you maintain a nutritious diet. While you have to really overdo your vitamin and mineral intake to create serious toxicity issues, even moderate levels of “megadosing” can have negative consequences. For example, a study from the University of Jena, Germany, found that vitamin C and E supplementation limited the beneficial increase in insulin sensitivity that normally results from exercise.

To prevent the negative consequences of megadosing, avoid taking multivitamins that contain more than 200 percent of the RDA for any single nutrient, or skip the multivitamin altogether and take only individual vitamins and minerals that are commonly deficient in the American diet, including folate and calcium. Also, consult your doctor and have your iron levels checked before taking any kind of iron supplement. Because iron-deficiency is relatively common in endurance athletes, and especially female runners, many take iron supplements as a form of insurance against deficiencies. But this may lead to iron overload, which can have serious health effects. A recent Swiss study found iron overload in 15 percent of the male participants in the Zurich Marathon.

If you do choose to take a multivitamin/multimineral supplement, shop carefully. Here are some tips:

Consider taking a “real food” multi. These are supplements that contain extracts from real foods and/or vitamins and minerals in the forms found in real foods instead of individual, stripped-down vitamins and minerals, which the body actually treats as foreign chemicals.

In traditional vitamin and mineral supplements (i.e. pills containing stripped-down, individual vitamins and minerals), look for the letters “USP” on the supplement bottle. This stands for “United States Pharmacopoeia”. Only vitamin and mineral supplements of the highest quality and absorbability earn this designation.

Alternatively, look for the “CL Approved” seal on the bottle. “CL” stands for ConsumerLabs.com, which is an independent supplement industry watchdog that tests the quality of supplements and gives its seal of approval to the best only.

Choose supplements that contain minerals in chelated form. This means the minerals are attached to proteins, just as they are in real foods, which aids absorption.

Look for enzymes in the formulation. Certain enzymes help your body absorb vitamins and minerals.

Don’t bother with vitamin and mineral supplements labeled as being especially for women, men, older people, children, or whatever. These are marketing gimmicks. We’re all human and we all need the same vitamins and minerals.

Finally, take your chosen vitamin and mineral supplement with a meal. This, too, will aid absorption.

****

Top 10 Moments In New York City Marathon History

Matt Fitzgerald — Wed, 02 Nov 2011 21:11:55 +0000

The finish of the 2005 New York City Marathon was the closest in the race's history. Photo: PhotoRun.net

One of the world’s great marathons came from truly humble beginnings–not so long ago.

Written by: Matt Fitzgerald

The New York City Marathon turns 41 years old this year. That’s really not very old (at least this 40-year-old writer would like to think not), but this great event has packed a lot of great moments into its relatively brief history. Here’s our top-10, in chronological order:

1970: A humble beginning

The inaugural New York City Marathon, which was the brainchild of New York Road Runners founder Fred Lebow, was a very humble affair—almost laughably so when you contrast it against what the event would become. The course consisted in a few loops of Central Park. The entry fee was $1. Only 127 runners started, and of those, a mere 55 finished!

1976: The first five-borough race

Although Fred Lebow started small, he always thought big, and in 1976 he took a big step toward realizing the full scope of his vision for the New York City Marathon by convincing the city to allow runners to travel through all five boroughs. Although the field was still small at just over 2,000 runners, Lebow scored another coup by attracting Olympic gold and silver medalist Frank Shorter to run the race.

1978: Grete Waitz arrives

In 1978 a relatively unknown Norwegian track runner named Grete Waitz ran New York as her first marathon and not only won but set a new world record of 2:32:20. Amazingly, it was the first run longer than 12 miles she had ever done.

1981: Alberto Salazar breaks world record—or not

The New York City Marathon course is not considered to be particularly conducive to fast times, but on that course in 1981 Alberto Salazar recorded the fastest marathon time ever run anywhere: 2:08:13. Maddeningly, however, Salazar’s world record was snatched away from him when the course was later remeasured and found to be a few meters short. His only consolation was in winning the NYC Marathon for a third time the following year (Salazar was also the 1980 winner).

1983: Rod Dixon outduels Geoff Smith

The 1983 men’s elite race brought unparalleled drama. England’s Geoff Smith started at a torrid pace and built a lead of more than a half mile over 1972 Olympic 1,500m silver medalist Rod Dixon of New Zealand with only a few miles left in the race. But Smith faltered and Dixon slowly reeled him in, catching and passing the exhausted Brit a mere 400 meters from the finish line.

1988: Grete Waitz wins her ninth NYC Marathon

Who could have known that Grete Waitz’s surprise victory in the 1978 NYC Marathon would be the first chapter in a decade-long domination of the event. That period of podium ownership culminated in 1988, when Waitz won for the ninth and last time.

1992: Fred Lebow finishes his own race

When he contracted brain cancer in 1990, Fred Lebow vowed to defeat the disease so thoroughly that he would be able to run the New York City Marathon himself, and in 1992 he fulfilled that promise, to the delight of his legions of admirers. Sadly, the disease did return, and in 1994 it took his life. He was only 62 years old.

2005: The closest finish ever

A margin of victory of 0.03 seconds is fairly small in a 100m dash. But in a marathon it is nothing—and almost unheard of. But that was the margin by which Kenyan Paul Tergat defeated South African Hendrick Ramaala in the 2005 New York City Marathon. The two men’s accelerating side-by-side push toward the finish in the final mile of the race was almost enough to make spectators’ heads explode.

2007: NYC Marathon hosts the men’s Olympic Trials

Whoever thought of hosting the 2008 U.S. Olympic Team Trials Men’s Marathon the day before the 2007 New York City Marathon on a spectator-friendly multi-lap course in Central Park deserves a medal. Ryan Hall put out one of the greatest marathon performances ever in winning the race handily in 2:09:02, running the second half in a stunning time of 1:02:45 on a very challenging route. Sadly, though, the day will mostly be remembered for the death of another competitor, and Hall’s close friend, Ryan Shay.

2009: Meb Keflezighi becomes first American winner in 27 years

On November 1, 2009, Meb Keflezighi became the first American to win the New York City Marathon since Alberto Salazar in 1982. Can he do it again in 2010? Or will Dathan Ritzenhein become the first American-born winner of the New York City Marathon since Bill Rodgers in 1979 (as neither Meb nor Salazar was born in the U.S.)? Or will some other kind of magical happening join the list of greatest moments in the history of one of the world’s great marathons?

[sgi:MattFitzgerald]

Sports Science Update: More Reasons To Leave Your Stride Alone?

Matt Fitzgerald — Tue, 01 Nov 2011 18:43:35 +0000

A new study finds that common stride “improvements” reduce running economy.

Written by: Matt Fitzgerald

Many coaches and experts encourage runners to bounce less and increase their cadence. The objective of making conscious efforts to run with less bounce and a higher cadence is to run with a lower energy cost, or better economy. A team of researchers recently measured the effects of these common running form prescriptions. The results should make coaches and experts think twice about continuing to make them.

Sixteen runners were recruited to participate in the study. They were asked to run at 16 kph (6:02/mile) and their rate of oxygen consumption was measured to assess their running economy. Their stride rates and vertical displacements (or bouncing) were also measured. The treadmill used for the experiment was tricked out with a visual and auditory feedback system for cadence and vertical displacement. The researchers gave each runner a target cadence and vertical displacement to aim for in a second go at running at 16 kph with a breathing mask on. The targets were intended to slightly increase each runner’s stride rate and slightly reduce his vertical displacement from current levels. The runners were able to hit these targets with relative ease with the aid of the visual and auditory feedback provided.

In the initial testing, the researchers found a positive association between natural stride rate and running economy (meaning the most efficient runners tended to take more steps per minute) and an inverse correlation between natural vertical displacement and running economy (meaning the most efficient runners tended to bounce less). These findings gave the researchers some cause to believe that forcing the runners to increase their cadence and reduce their bouncing would improve running economy. However, just the opposite happened. “Alterations led to an increase in metabolic cost in most cases, measured as VO2 uptake per minute and kg body mass,” they confessed.

I don’t know if the researchers were surprised by this finding, but in any case, they should not have been. Past research has generally found that consciously forced changes to running form reduce economy regardless of the specific nature of those changes. This appears to happen for two reasons. First, through training, runners tend to automatically find the most economical way to run for them individually given the present realities of their body structure and biomechanical constraints. Second, as runners become more practiced, they are able to run with less brain activation—that is, more unconsciously. Forcing runners to think about how they are running increases brain activation and reverses the economy-boosting effect of being able to run half-asleep thanks to experience.

This doesn’t mean that runners are always stuck with the running form they have and cannot become more economical. But it does mean that runners have to let these improvements unfold automatically by simply running a lot, running consistently, and running hard.

When I was working on The Runner’s Edge, a book I coauthored with Stephen McGregor, PhD, whose research supports the statements of the preceding paragraph, we came across a runner named Roberto Veneziani, who used a Polar speed and distance device to track his cadence over the course of a full season of training and racing. Then he created a graph that plotted his cadence against his race performances. Between August of one year and February of the next, Roberto’s fitness and race performances improved markedly. His average stride rate in training also increased significantly, from roughly 78 strides per minute to almost 88. But this change occurred without any conscious intervention. Roberto just ran, and let his cadence (and every other dimension of his running form, for that matter) take care of itself.

The authors of the study described above noted, “Mid- and long-term effects of altering…technique should also be studied.” I suppose it’s possible that consciously forced changes to running form that reduce running economy immediately could improve it eventually if insisted upon over weeks or months. But we don’t know that, and in the meantime we do not that just leaving well enough alone and running a lot, running consistently, and running hard does work, so I, for one, will continue doing that.

****

Should You Take Antioxidants During Exercise?

Matt Fitzgerald — Thu, 27 Oct 2011 17:41:07 +0000

Australian researchers suggest it may be best to let free radicals do their thing.

Written by: Matt Fitzgerald

Sometimes there’s a subtle difference between an aid and a crutch. An aid is a tool that elevates performance. A crutch is a tool that makes it easier to perform and thereby weakens one’s ability to perform without the benefit of that tool. Often it is difficult to distinguish between a tool and a crutch. There are many examples of this fine line in exercise. For example, a pull buoy can be used to teach proper body position in freestyle swimming. But an athlete who overuses a pull buoy may become dependent on it and unable to achieve a correct body position without it.

In recent years exercise scientists have been trying to figure out whether antioxidant supplementation during exercise is an aid or a crutch. This question is not yet settled, but a pair of Australian researchers have recently published a scientific review that leans toward declaring antioxidant supplementation during exercise a crutch.

Here’s why. As everyone knows, the working muscles process a lot of oxygen during exercise. Some of the oxygen molecules that the muscles use to release energy become free radicals, or what scientists prefer to call reactive oxygen species. Free radicals are known to cause muscle damage and impair muscle function, hastening fatigue.

As everyone also knows, antioxidants are compounds that counteract free radicals. Some antioxidants are endogenous, meaning the body makes them. Others are exogenous, entering the body as nutrients. Vitamins C and E, carotenoids, and polyphenols are examples of the latter.

Given this knowledge, it was inevitable that some people would begin to wonder whether taking in supplemental antioxidant nutrients during exercise could reduce muscle damage and enhance performance. It was inevitable also that some companies would begin to make products containing antioxidants and intended for use during exercise before this question was answered.

Within the past several years a large number of studies have attempted to answer the question. Recently, two scientists at the University of Queensland, Australia, Tina-Tinkara Peternelj and Jeff Coombes, looked over more than 150 of these studies in an attempt to discover what sort of answer they arrived at in sum. By and large they were unimpressed, observing that most of the studies were too small and too poorly designed to be of much value.

Nevertheless, we know a lot more than we did before these 150 studies were conducted, Peternelj and Coombes say. One thing that seems certain is that supplementation with antioxidants during exercise reduces oxidative stress in the muscles. “However,” the authors of the new review caution, “any physiological implications of this have yet to be consistently demonstrated, with most studies reporting no effects on exercise-induced muscle damage and performance. Moreover, a growing body of evidence indicates detrimental effects of antioxidant supplementation on the health and performance benefits of exercise training.”

In other words, by reducing oxidative stress in the muscles, antioxidants taken during exercise may function as more of a crutch than as an aid. How so? Well, in addition to causing muscle damage and impairing muscle function, free radicals also stimulate physiological adaptations that increase fitness. Consequently, when free radicals are prevented from performing their full actions by antioxidants consumed during a workout, that workout may yield less benefit.

In this sense, antioxidants could be said to function like an overzealous spotter in a weightlifting workout. Weightlifting makes the muscles stronger by subjecting them to stress and breakdown that trigger an adaptive response. If you lift weights with an excessively helpful spotter who takes half the load away from you in every bench press and every squat, your muscles will be subjected to less stress and breakdown and will therefore get less benefit from the session.

According to the new review out of Australia, high doses of certain antioxidants taken during exercise seem to be analogous to this overzealous spotter. So what does this mean for you?

“More research is needed to produce evidence-based guidelines regarding the use of antioxidant supplementation during exercise training,” Peternelj and Coombes conclude. “We recommend that an adequate intake of vitamins and minerals through a varied and balanced diet remains the best approach to maintain the optimal antioxidant status in exercising individuals.”

****

The Imaginary Perfect Diet

Matt Fitzgerald — Wed, 26 Oct 2011 15:42:34 +0000

There is more than one way to eat for optimal health. Don’t let anyone tell you otherwise.

Written by: Matt Fitzgerald

The other day I received an email message from a distressed reader of some of my books and articles on nutrition. We’ll call her Sue.

“Have you seen the documentary Forks Over Knives?” Sue wrote. “The essence of the documentary is that humans greatly increase their risk of cancer and heart disease if any animal products are consumed. I love meat, but I’d gladly eliminate animal products from my diet if they are truly ‘toxic’ or dangerous for me.”

If you’re not familiar with the film Sue referred to, you’ll get a full sense of what it’s all about from watching the trailer. The documentary’s argument for vegetarianism is based largely on the work of Colin Campbell, a veteran nutrition researcher who first made a name for himself with his book, The China Study, which made the same argument as the later film.

It’s easy to understand why a non-vegetarian who is generally concerned about eating right would come away from watching Forks Over Knives in a state of high alarm. Although the film uses every technique in the book to prey on the viewer’s emotions and susceptibility to fear, the content is fundamentally science based. All kinds of studies and statistics and correlations are cited, which seem to prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that eating animal products of any kind and in any amount is bad for human health.

Loren Cordain is also a veteran nutrition researcher. Author of The Paleo Diet, Cordain believes that eating meat is essential for optimal health. Grains are the great devil of his diet philosophy. Walter Willett is also a veteran nutrition researcher. Author of Eat, Drink, And Be Healthy, Willett is an advocate of the Mediterranean diet, in which both meat and grains have a part.

I think you see the point I’m getting at here. If all of these diets are based on science, why are they so different?

There are two reasons. First, while science has come up with all kinds of correlations between particular dietary patterns and risk levels for particular diseases, it has not even come close to definitively defining the perfect diet. This situation allows individual scientists to cherry-pick certain correlations and then make a speculative leap to define the perfect diet.

“Because people who don’t eat meat showed a lower risk for disease A in study B,” declares scientist X, “vegetarianism must be the perfect diet.

“Because people who don’t eat grain showed a lower risk for disease C in study D,” declares scientist Y, “then the Paleo Diet must be the perfect diet.”

“Because people who ate a Mediterranean diet (including meat and grains) showed a lower risk for disease E in study F,” says scientist Z, “the Mediterranean diet must be the perfect diet.”

While all of the studies on which these conclusions are based may be valid, the conclusions are not. They are speculative leaps. But wait: Aren’t scientists trained not to speculate? So why, then, do so many nutrition scientists do it?

Because we have to eat. We can’t wait until science defines the perfect diet once and for all to eat as healthily as we can in the meantime. So we have to make decisions based on what evidence we have. This is not an excuse for making the kinds of speculative leaps I’ve just described, but it is an explanation. Scientists are human. Some who decide to eat a certain way for themselves based on what they know and what they infer can’t help but declare their personal choice to be the one true path for everyone.

Personally, I don’t think science will ever define the perfect diet for everyone. The sum of all available evidence gives a pretty strong indication that most people can achieve more or less optimal health on a variety of different diets. Put another way, many diets are good enough, and none is perfect.

This is what I told Sue, and with evident relief Sue replied that she plans to continue to include some animal products in her diet.

****

Sports Science Update: Does “Barefoot” Running Have Legs?

Matt Fitzgerald — Tue, 25 Oct 2011 17:07:49 +0000

A new scientific survey shows more interest than participation.

Written by: Matt Fitzgerald

Very few runners have switched to running on naked feet. But very many, it seems, have switched to running in minimalist footwear.

The May 2009 publication of Christopher McDougall’s Born to Run kicked off what we might call a barefoot running revolution. Two and a half years later, what is the state of that revolution? What are its lasting effects?

The most obvious effects are to be seen in the running shoe industry. Very few runners have switched to running on naked feet. But very many, it seems, have switched to running in minimalist footwear. According to a New York Times article published this past summer, sales of barely-there running shoes such as those made by Vibram increased by 283 percent in 2010. Compare that to an 18 percent increase in running shoe sales overall.

Carey Rothschild, a physical therapist at the University of Central Florida, recently came at the question of the state of the barefoot running revolution from a different angle. She developed a survey to assess individual interest and participation in barefoot and minimalist running and distributed it electronically to more than 6,000 runners. The results were published in the October 2011 edition of the Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research.

More than 75 percent of respondents “indicated they were at least somewhat interested in running barefoot or in minimalist shoes,” according to Rothschild. More than one in five had tried actual barefoot running and 30 percent had tried running in minimalist footwear. Runners who were male, of younger age, and who considered themselves “elite” (this was Rothschild’s word; I assume she meant “competitive”) were more likely to have given it a go. The most commonly cited reason for trying barefoot or minimalist running was a desire to prevent future injuries. Those who made the experiment were equally likely to have received guidance from friends or from books. And more than 85 percent “indicated they were at least somewhat likely to continue with or to add barefoot or minimalist shod running if provided sufficient instruction.”

These results suggest that the barefoot running revolution does have legs. However, there were some contrary indications as well. Only 13 percent of the runners who received Rothschild’s survey filled it out and submitted it. That’s not a bad participation rate. In fact, it’s fairly high, which strengthens my intuition that there was a strong self-selection effect at work in favor of runners who were into barefoot or minimalist running. I suspect that the 87 percent of runners who did not respond to the survey would have filled it out rather differently.

Also unclear from the abstract (I haven’t been able to access the full paper) is the percentage of respondents who were currently running barefoot or in minimalist footwear. The abstract tells us how many had tried it previously. But how many had since gone back to their old shoes? I think we all know runners who have experimented with minimalist footwear, gotten hurt, and retreated to traditional running shoes. I’d be willing to bet that the difference between the percentage of runners who “had previously tried” barefoot and minimalist running and the percentage of runners who were still doing it was fairly substantial.

Another telling statistic from the survey was this: 54 percent of respondents cited fear of getting injured as the primary barrier to running barefoot or in minimalist shoes. I wonder to what degree this fear was informed by common sense and to what degree it was informed by personal familiarity with barefoot forays gone wrong. As the number of barefoot experimenters who tear Achilles tendons, strain calves, fracture calcaneal bones, and mutilate plantar fascia accumulates, fear of injury may prevent more and more runners from trying the same experiment, despite their evident curiosity.

Scientists who administer surveys know that “intent” is seldom to be trusted. Close to 100 percent of adults intend to reduce the amount of debt they carry each year, but more than half usually go in the opposite direction. So while that 85 percent statistic seems to foretell a tidal wave of future barefoot and minimalist runners, the smart money might bet against it.

As a runner who favors relatively minimal shoes and who believes that, before May 2009, a great many runners who would have been better off in minimalist shoes were not wearing them, I am pleased that the barefoot running revolution has dramatically increased the number and variety of minimalist offerings on the shelves of running specialty retails stores. If the revolution goes no further than this, I’ll be satisfied.

****

Nutrition For The Older Runner

Matt Fitzgerald — Thu, 20 Oct 2011 12:58:21 +0000

Your body changes through the years. Should your diet?

Written by: Matt Fitzgerald

A diet that is laden with antioxidant-rich fruits and vegetables will slow the aging process and its effects on performance. Photo: Scott Draper

The percentage of runners over age 45 has increased by more than 30 percent in the past five years. This is due in part to the fact that the sport’s retention rate is growing: the number of people who have been running for 10 years or more has also increased substantially in recent years. Nutrition is critical to running well over the long haul.

Older runners do not have nutritional needs that are substantially different from those of runners in general. What is different about older runners, however, is that they can’t get away with not eating properly they way a younger person might. In other words, the nutrition guidelines that are important for younger runners are even more important for older runners.

A diet that is laden with antioxidant-rich fruits and vegetables will slow the aging process and its effects on performance. This is true because aging is caused in part by free radical damage to body tissues. As the body ages its antioxidant capacity—that is, its capacity to protect itself from free radicals—decreases, and antioxidant capacity, in turn, is linked to endurance performance. Supplementing a plant-based diet with additional antioxidants may yield further benefits. A study conducted by researchers at UCLA and published in the Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition provided intriguing evidence that antioxidant supplementation may be especially helpful to older endurance athletes.

The subjects of the study were 16 male cyclists between the ages of 50 and 73 years who trained at least four hours per week. Half of the subjects were randomly assigned to take an antioxidant supplement daily for three weeks while the others were given a daily placebo. All of the subjects engaged in their normal training during the intervention and all underwent performance testing at the start of the intervention, again after one week, and one last time after three weeks.

At one week, the subjects receiving the antioxidant supplement exhibited a 16.7 percent increase in anaerobic threshold. This increase was almost completely maintained at three weeks. There was no change in anaerobic threshold in the control group. The supplemented subjects also exhibited an increase in power output at anaerobic threshold while the control subjects did not.

Another issue of concern to older runners is recovery nutrition. Older runners are more susceptible to muscle damage caused by eccentric muscle contractions (muscle contractions wherein the muscle lengthens as it contracts) and are not able to repair this damage as quickly between workouts. You can reduce muscle damage during running by drinking a good sports drink. You can also greatly accelerate muscle tissue repair by consuming a recovery drink containing carbs and protein within 45 minutes of completing a run. But whereas a 20-year-old runner might be able to stray from these guidelines somewhat without noticeable consequences, a 50-year-old runner will almost certainly compromised his or her recovery severely.

Nutrition habits play an important role in maintaining muscle mass and strength. The older a runner gets the less he can take his nutrition habits for granted in this regard. After age 35 we tend to gradually lose muscle mass, mainly because we produce smaller amounts of anabolic hormones such as growth hormone. Adequate protein intake is essential for muscle maintenance. Research has also shown that athletes who practice correct recovery nutrition habits are better able to maintain muscle mass.

Proper nutrition alone is not enough. Unless you combine adequate protein intake with exercise, you will not succeed in slowing aging-related muscle atrophy. Running is exercise, of course, and running has been shown to delay and slow muscle loss in older runners. But to really do the job properly you must supplement your running with strength training. Again, younger runners can likely avoid strength training and not lose muscle mass. (For injury prevention, strength training will benefit you no matter what your age.) But once you pass age 35, strength training becomes truly indispensable for maintaining muscle mass–along with adequate protein intake and correct post-workout nutrition habits.

Our daily energy needs also tend to decrease gradually as we age. This is primarily an effect of a simultaneous decrease in the resting metabolic rate (RMR), which in turn is partly due to muscle loss. One reason most adults gain weight steadily throughout adulthood is that they continue to eat the same amount despite the fact that their RMR is going down. This phenomenon does not occur in runners and other endurance athletes, however. In a study at the University of Colorado, female runners and swimmers aged 50-72 had the same RMR as women aged 21-35, whereas the RMR of sedentary women aged 50-72 was 10 percent lower on average.

So the bottom line is that if you stay in shape throughout your life, the amount you eat should not have to change.

****

Workout Of The Week: Anaerobic Training

Matt Fitzgerald — Wed, 19 Oct 2011 17:05:00 +0000

Adding anaerobic training to your regimen will increase speed and power while keeping you healthy.

Written by: Matt Fitzgerald

Some runners have funny ideas about the meaning of the word “anaerobic”. It’s not their fault, though, because even many exercise physiologists harbor an outdated understanding of aerobic and anaerobic metabolism. Often I hear athletes talk about “going anaerobic” when their running intensity exceeds the anaerobic or lactate threshold, which is a moderately high but not extremely high intensity—one that most fit individuals can sustain for a full hour. This expression—“going anaerobic”—reflects an incorrect belief that the working muscles get their energy either entirely aerobically or entirely anaerobically, whereas in fact they almost always get their energy from both systems simultaneously, with the balance shifting gradually from aerobic toward anaerobic as exercise intensity increases. And indeed, exercise intensity must increase far above the lactate threshold before the muscles even get a majority of their energy anaerobically. If you were to run as far as you could in two minutes (in other words, as hard as you could for two minutes), your muscles would get about half of their energy aerobically during that effort.

This much is understood by most exercise scientists. But what all too many of these professionals don’t know is that most of what is classified as anaerobic metabolism is actually just incomplete aerobic metabolism. Recent research has shown that roughly 75 percent of the lactate that is produced through the anaerobic breakdown of glucose is further broken down aerobically within the muscles cells to release energy. The rest is shuttled to other organs and tissues, where it is either broken down aerobically to supply energy or converted back into glucose for future aerobic breakdown.

If anaerobic glycolysis is reclassified as incomplete aerobic glycolysis, as it should be, then virtually the only truly anaerobic metabolism that occurs in the muscles is the breakdown of high-energy phosphates. This type of metabolism becomes predominant only at the very highest exercise intensities, such as during 100-meter sprints.

While true anaerobic metabolism has only a tiny place in running, anaerobic fitness—or speed and power—is critical to distance running performance. The average runner thinks of factors such as VO2max, fat-burning capacity and running economy as being the keys to running performance and tends to forget about pure speed. But if you set aside your prejudices and look at the speed of world-class distance runners, you will see that pure speed is at least as important as the other performance keys. Most 2:11 marathoners are capable of running a sub-50-second 400m. Folks, that is flying!

Research confirms the importance of pure speed to distance running performance. A study by Finnish researchers found that 20m sprint times were nearly as powerful a predictor of 5,000m race times as VO2max. Studies by the same group have demonstrated that explosive power training effectively improves distance-running performance.

It may seem strange that anaerobic training enhances distance-running performance when there is virtually no anaerobic component to actual distance racing, but it’s true. The primary reason appears to be that anaerobic training increases the bounciness of the stride, so that the feet come off the ground faster and more forcefully. This improves running economy, because half of the energy that propels forward motion during running is supplied not by the body but by the force of impact, and the less time the feet are in contact with the ground, the less of that free energy is lost.

In short, for runners the point of performing types of training that involve anaerobic metabolism is not to developing anaerobic metabolic capacity but rather to increase the speed and power characteristics of the muscle fibers.

Therefore, true anaerobic efforts deserve a bigger place in your training than they have in your races. There are three specific types of anaerobic training that you should be sure to include in your training regimen: sprints, plyometrics and weightlifting.

Sports Science Update: Older Runners Keep Their Economy

Matt Fitzgerald — Tue, 18 Oct 2011 11:48:28 +0000

A new study finds that runners maintain efficiency despite losing speed as they age.

Written by: Matt Fitzgerald

Eighty-year-old Ed Whitlock recently ran 3:15:51 at the Scotiabank Toronto Waterfront Marathon, proof that older runners maintain efficiency with age. Photo; PhotoRun.net

Aging brings about many changes in the tissues and organs of the human body that negatively affect running performance. But these changes do not diminish every dimension of running performance. The ability to sustain relatively high submaximal speeds over long distances is really a composite ability to which other, more fundamental capacities contribute. These include speed, power, aerobic capacity, and running economy. Among the fundamental capacities that contribute to running performance, running economy appears to be alone in resisting diminishment with age.

This was demonstrated in a new study authored by researchers at the University of New Hampshire. Fifty-one high-level runners representing three separate age brackets were recruited to participate in the study. Eighteen runners were between the ages of 18 and 39, and were classified as “young”. Another 22 runners fell between the ages of 40 and 59, and were labeled “masters”. The remaining 11 runners, all over 60, comprised the “older” group. All 51 runners were subjected to a comprehensive battery of tests to measure various running-related physical abilities and characteristics. Their muscle strength, muscle power, muscular endurance, flexibility, and body composition were assessed. On treadmills, their cadence, lactate threshold, VO2max, and running economy at four different velocities were measured.

If the three age groups were teams and these tests were competitions, the older group would have lost most of them badly. VO2max declined from 64.1 ml/kg/min in the young group to 56.8 in the masters group to 44.4 in the older group. Maximal heart rate dropped from 197 bpm to 183 to 170. Velocity at lactate threshold fell from 289.7 meters per minute (5:33/mile) to 251.5 m/min (6:24/mile) to 212.3 (7:34/mile). Members of the older group also exhibited significant losses in speed, power, and upper body strength relative to the young and masters groups.

The tests of running economy were the only exceptions to this pattern. At all four velocities, running economy was roughly equal among the three age groups. Runners over age 60 were just as efficient at slow, moderate, and fast running speeds as runner under 40. The authors of the study thus concluded, “The results from this cross-sectional analysis suggest that age-related declines in running performance are associated with declines in maximal and submaximal cardiorespiratory variables and declines in strength and power, not because of declines in running economy.”

This interesting finding raises the question of why running economy does not decline with age. Similar to running performance itself, running economy is a composite attribute to which other, more fundamental factors contribute. One major factor that contributes to running economy is the capacity of the leg muscles and tendons to capture energy from impact forces and release it back into the ground to propel forward movement. Jumping tests are sometimes used as an approximate way to measure this characteristic, which is often referred to as “leg stiffness” because it has to do with the leg’s ability to quickly stiffen when the foot hits the ground. Runners who can jump higher generally exhibit greater leg stiffness and better running economy.

Jumping tests actually measure leg muscle power more directly than they do leg stiffness, and in this study the older runners exhibited significantly less leg muscle power than young and master runners. In other words, the older runners were just as economical as the younger runners despite scoring lower in one of the major fundamental contributors to running economy.

This point brings us to the second major contributor to running economy, which is biomechanics. Runners who coordinate their stride movements more effectively run more efficiently. There is no single stride pattern that is most effective for all runners. Differences in body structure create a requirement for each runner to find his or her own most effective way to run. What is universal in the relationship between running biomechanics and running economy is that runners who slow down the least when their feet land and whose feet spend the least time in contact with the ground run most efficiently.

Biomechanical measurements were not included in this study, but it’s safe to assume that if they had been, the older runners would have exhibited no more braking on impact and no greater ground contact time than the young and masters runners. In fact, the older runners might have scored even better in these measures. After all, the older runners were just as economical as the other groups despite having less power, hence probably less leg stiffness. So they had to be doing something else better than the younger runners, and that something was almost certainly biomechanical, or neuromuscular.

These speculations raise the interesting possibility that runners are able to continue to improve their biomechanics or neuromuscular efficiency throughout life. Something to look forward to!

****

About The Author:

Is Your Sports Drink Good Enough?

Matt Fitzgerald — Thu, 13 Oct 2011 17:35:51 +0000

The basic sports drink formula hasn’t changed in 45 years. That doesn’t mean newer is better.

Written by: Matt Fitzgerald

In 1965 a 37-year-old associate professor of medicine at the University of Florida developed the first sports drink, which became known as Gatorade. It contained water to rehydrate athletes, salt and potassium to replace the minerals they lost in sweat, and sugar to maintain blood glucose. Over the next several years this concoction was extensively studied and found to significantly boost athletic performance compared to plain water.

Cade did not nail his sports drink formulation on the first try. He had to fiddle with various concentrations of minerals and carbs to arrive at the formulation that had the greatest beneficial impact on hydration and exercise performance. Scientists use the term “osmolality” to refer to the total concentration of dissolved particles in a solution. A solution is said to be hypotonic when its total concentration of dissolved particles is less than that of the body’s cells and blood. A solution is said to be isotonic when the concentration is equal. And “hypertonic” describes a solution that has a greater concentration of dissolved particles than the cells and blood.

In theory, isotonic beverages are absorbed more quickly through the intestine into the blood stream because the gastrointestinal system does not have to do as much to adjust the osmolality of the fluid. But Cade ultimately settled on a formulation that was slightly hypertonic, because adding a little more carbohydrate yielded the separate benefits of making the drink more palatable and providing more energy to the working muscles.

In the 46 years since Robert Cade developed the first sports drink, many other sports drinks have come to market. Not all of these drinks have the same osmolality. Some are isotonic, and others are even hypotonic. It is usually a lower level of carbohydrate that reduces the osmolality of a hypotonic sports drink, but mineral concentrations also have an effect.

“Low sugar” sports drink that are hypotonic because of their lower sugar concentration have become popular lately. The makers of some of these sports drinks argue that their products are absorbed even faster than more traditional formulations. In a recent study, researchers at Massey University in New Zealand directly compared the effects of a hypotonic sports drink (3.9 percent carbs), an isotonic sports drink (7.6 percent carbs), and a hypertonic sports drink (6 percent carbs), as well as a placebo (flavored water), on hydration and exercise performance.

Eleven athletes were recruited as subjects for the study. Each of them rode at a moderate intensity on an exercise bike for two hours and then rode briefly at increasing intensities until they reached exhaustion. This test was repeated on four separate occasions. Subjects consumed one of the four beverages on each occasion in random order until they had tried all four.

The researchers found that blood volume decreased most during the workout in which the subjects consumed water. It decreased by smaller and similar amounts with all three of the sports drinks. In other words, the sports drinks hydrated better than water, and more or less equally among themselves. The same pattern of results was seen with respect to performance. The subjects performed significantly worse in the incremental test to exhaustion at the end of the workout in which they drank water. Performance differentials were small and inconclusive among the three sports drinks.

In the marketing of sports-related products, including sports nutrition products, “newer” is often equated with better. But as the results of this new study indicate, the traditional sports drink formulation that has existed for nearly five decades works as well as newer alternatives.

There are meaningful differences in sports drink formulations. For example, subjects in the study just described reported lower levels of gut comfort with the isotonic sports drink than with the other two. So you may need to experiment a little to find the product that works best for you. But as this study also shows, all sports drinks hydrate better and improve performance more than water.

****

Sports Science Update: Should You Stand All Day?

Matt Fitzgerald — Tue, 11 Oct 2011 16:42:23 +0000

A new study says you’ll burn more calories at a standing desk. But will it ruin your recovery?

Written by: Matt Fitzgerald

Researchers at the University of Minnesota found that students burned 35 percent more calories when standing then when sitting.

Many experts blame sitting for our society’s weight problem and its many associated health effects. People spend more time sitting than ever before. As a result we burn fewer calories and gain more weight.

In 2010, researchers at the University of Montreal published a study that looked at changes in calorie intake, activity level, and obesity rates in Canada between 1972 and 2004. They found that, while people were eating slightly less and were slightly more active in 2004, the obesity rate was also 10 percent higher. The authors speculated that people got fatter despite eating less and exercising more because of a shift toward more sedentary jobs over that 22-year period—in other words, because people were sitting more.

A new study out of the University of Minnesota hints at the potential to reverse this problem in the simplest way possible. Twenty student volunteers spent 45 minutes solving math problems at either of two desks: a traditional desk at which they worked in a seated position and a standing desk with no chair. Exhaled gases were collected to determine the rate of calorie burning in the two situations. The researchers found that the students burned 35 percent more calories when standing then when sitting.

Naturally, the authors of this study, which was published in the Journal of Physical Activity and Health, recommend standing desks for everyone based on these results. But do runners and other heavy exercisers really need them?

The answer is not as simple as you might assume. Other studies have provided evidence that the negative effects of sitting on body weight and metabolism may offset the positive effects of exercise. For example, a 2009 study led by Peter Katzmarzyk at Pennington Biomedical Research Center found that the more time people spent sitting daily, the greater their risk was for dying of cardiovascular disease, regardless of how much they exercised.

Some scientists have speculated that one of the reasons exercise is seldom as effective for weight loss in practice as it is in theory is that people tend to unconsciously compensate for increases in exercise activity by moving less outside of workouts. A number of studies have explored this possibility, and the emerging consensus is that such compensation typically occurs only among the elderly. Nevertheless, it’s something to be mindful of, even if you’re young.

Experts are increasingly advising people to make daily efforts to reduce sitting time and increase daily activity outside of exercise. But anyone who’s ever stood in line all day waiting for a chance to try out for American Idol knows how trashed the legs feel after hours on one’s feet. Sure, working at a standing desk might burn a few more calories in the day, but what if those calories come at the cost of compromised recovery and reduced running performance?

Racing Weight: Beware The Weekend Binge

This is a legitimate concern. While the question of the effect of long periods of standing on post-exercise recovery has received little attention, one study found that even five minutes of lying down after a high-intensity cycling bout improved nervous system performance in a second bout compared to standing.

There may be a happy medium between continuing to sit whenever you’re not training and taking the risk of trying to adapt to working at a standing desk. Here are three simple ideas to try:

Set a daily TV watching limit. How much television do you watch in a typical day? Two hours? Try setting a limit of 90 minutes a day.

Don’t sit for more than 30 minutes at a time. For example, at work, get up from your desk every 30 minutes and do something—walk over to the water cooler, visit a friend’s cubicle—for at least one minute.

Find ways to walk more. For example, treat the family dog to longer walks, schedule walking meetings with coworkers, and start practicing that old trick of parking at the far end of the lot at the office, stores, and other places you drive to.

*****

The Other Benefits Of Sports Drinks

Matt Fitzgerald — Thu, 06 Oct 2011 17:57:51 +0000

Did you know your sports drink could reduce your chances of getting sick this season?

Written by: Matt Fitzgerald

Yesterday I saw a friend who was battling a bronchial infection. This friend is a runner, and like most runners he does not like to miss workouts because of illness. He was already dressed and ready to run when I saw him, and he asked me whether he should go ahead and do the workout or can it.

“That depends on two things,” I said. “If you honestly feel up to it and you can hold yourself back to a moderate effort, running will probably help you get better sooner. But if you feel lousy and you run anyway, or you run too hard, running will only make you sicker.”

I wasn’t just making this answer up. It’s based on solid research. For example, a 2009 study by researchers at the University of Iowa found that moderate daily exercise improved flu symptoms in mice infected with a flu virus. The key word here is “moderate.” Attempt only short, low-intensity workouts when you are experiencing cold or flu symptoms, stop exercising immediately if you feel horrible while working out at a low intensity, and simply avoid exercise completely if you feel miserable even thinking about working out. In short, listen to your body and use common sense when approaching training when you’re under the weather.

Exercise is truly a double-edged sword in relation to cold and flu. Light and moderate cardiovascular exercise give the immune system a boost. However, strenuous workouts are known to result in an acute suppression of immune system function that can last for two to 72 hours afterwards, depending on the individual and the precise nature of the workout.

The primary cause of this suppression is the hormone cortisol. Cortisol is released by the adrenal glands in response to all forms of stress. Its main function is to stimulate the breakdown of proteins and fats in the body and increase the blood glucose concentration. Cortisol release is greatest during high-intensity exercise and in the latter portion of long workouts, when the preferred energy source of muscle glycogen has been depleted. As a side-effect, cortisol suppresses immune system function by decreasing production of lymphocytes and antibodies, which are the warriors of your body’s immune defense.

In addition to the advice to listen to his body and take it easy, there was a second suggestion I gave to my runner friend with the bronchial infection yesterday: “Take a sports drink with you.” Believe it or not, by drinking a good sports drink before and during workouts, athletes can minimize the immune suppression that comes with hard training. Research by David Nieman at Appalachian State University has demonstrated that the carbohydrate in sports drinks can combat the effects of cortisol on two levels. First of all, by taking in carbohydrate during workouts, runners are able maintain higher levels of blood glucose, which slows the use of muscle glycogen and delays the need for the use of protein as an energy source.

In addition, carbohydrate stimulates the release of insulin from the pancreas. Insulin is a hormone that is responsible for delivering carbohydrate, in the form of glucose, to the working muscles. But it so happens that insulin also neutralizes cortisol and thereby reduces its effect on the immune system.

Of course my friend went ahead and ran. When I saw him afterward he said that he was mindful of his intensity and held himself back from running as hard as he would have done otherwise. I’m hopeful that his restraint and the carbs he took in while he ran will help him return to full health and normal training sooner. The next time you feel a tickle in your throat, be sure to do the same.

****

Sports Science Update: Cortisol And The Runner

Matt Fitzgerald — Tue, 04 Oct 2011 17:42:45 +0000

A new study shows endurance athletes have chronically elevated cortisol levels. Should you be worried?

Written by: Matt Fitzgerald

Twenty years ago the average person did not know what cortisol was. Today cortisol is as familiar to most of us as other hormones such as insulin and testosterone. To say that the average person has a full and accurate understanding of cortisol’s nature and functions in the human body would be a stretch, however.

In the lay public, cortisol is known as a “stress hormone” that is bad for the body. While it is true that the body does release cortisol in response to various kinds of stress, it is important to recognize that our body’s ability to respond to stress is critical to our health and survival. Even the improvements in physical fitness that we get through training are a form of stress response. Cortisol’s effects on the body are fundamentally beneficial except when we are subjected to too much stress. Then it becomes too much of a good thing. But, of course, cortisol is not exceptional in this regard.

Ask The Experts: What’s The Best Way To Remove Cortisol From Our Systems?

Cortisol is produced by the adrenal gland. Its release is controlled by the hypothalamus, which is a major controller of metabolism located in the brain. One of the main jobs of cortisol is to increase the glucose concentration in the blood to make more energy readily available to the muscles. As you might expect, cortisol release from the adrenal gland increases at the onset of exercise and remains elevated throughout exercise, when the muscles create a great demand for energy.

The normal effects of cortisol are evanescent. Stress occurs, cortisol is released to make energy available, stress ceases, cortisol release goes down, and the body goes back to its normal homeostatic state. But when stress becomes chronic, as it is for so many of us today, the body is continually exposed to high levels of cortisol and long-term negative health effects may occur. Chronically elevated cortisol levels have been linked to problems including abdominal fat gain, cognitive decline, and compromised immune function. The link between cortisol and weight gain especially—which has been overblown in some quarters, but is real—has caused the hormone to acquire a bad reputation within the pace decade.

Because some of the highest cortisol surges occur during and after exercise, endurance athletes are exposed to more cortisol than even many of the most stressed-out non-athletes. But do these repeated short bursts of cortisol release really add up to long-term high cortisol exposure in runners and other endurance athletes? A new study says yes.

German researchers used a novel technique of measuring cortisol levels in hair to quantify cortisol levels over time in a group of endurance athletes and compared the results to measurements taken from non-athletes. They found that long-term cortisol exposure was indeed significantly higher in the athletes. Does this mean that endurance training is bad for our health, or at least bad in one particular way?

Enough is known about the many positive health effects of endurance training to say without qualification that, on balance, it is extremely beneficial to overall health. And since endurance training has been shown specifically to reduce abdominal fat storage, improve brain function and (except in cases of overtraining) enhance immune function, we can also say that high cortisol levels in endurance athletes do not have the same health implications that they have in non-athletes.

There can be too much of any good thing. Just as cortisol turns from good to bad when chronically produced in excess, endurance training turns from healthful to unhealthful when an athlete overtrains. In the overtrained athlete, high cortisol levels may have negative health effects, but even then high cortisol levels are just one of many imbalances seen in endurance athletes who work too hard and don’t rest enough.

As a runner, you don’t need to worry too much about cortisol. Just train smart and your hormones will take care of themselves.

****